Popcorn Johnny:So it's not legal for a 15 year old to consent to sex, but it's just fine if she buys a morning after pill without parental permission? Not really understanding the logic behind that decision.

Should we also ban the purchase of contraception?

Also, it's legal for a 15 year old to have sex with another 15 year old. And they do it all the time without worrying much about the law (and would continue to do so even if it were illegal). Since this is going to happen anyway, we would at least like to limit the number of children produced from the activity.

Popcorn Johnny:Aarontology: Because they're two entirely different issues.How so? Parents have the right to know what their kids are doing.

Frankly, I'd rather a 15 year old girl buy a morning after pill and avoid pregnancy all together than end up having a kid she can't take care of because she was too busy trying to hide everything from her parents or because her parents are fundie asshats that force her to have go through with the pregnancy rather help her get an abortion.

Popcorn Johnny:So it's not legal for a 15 year old to consent to sex, but it's just fine if she buys a morning after pill without parental permission? Not really understanding the logic behind that decision.

Popcorn Johnny:So it's not legal for a 15 year old to consent to sex, but it's just fine if she buys a morning after pill without parental permission? Not really understanding the logic behind that decision.

First, in most states, it's legal under many circumstances.Second, your analogy is flawed. It's like saying "It's illegal for felons to own guns, therefore felons should be unable to receive medical treatment if they accidentally shoot themselves with a gun."

The government is moving the morning-after pill over the counter but only those 15 and older can buy it -- an attempt to find middle ground just days before a court-imposed deadline to lift all age restrictions on the emergency contraceptive.

Popcorn Johnny:That said, I don't agree with girls under the age of consent being able to purchase this without their parents knowledge. Maybe it should be that they don't need parental permission, but the parents are notified of the purchase after the fact.

Why? The only other analogy out there are states that require parental notice to get an abortion. Do you think Plan B is an abortifacient? It's not. It's emergency contraceptive, it prevents pregnancy from occuring, it doesn't terminate an already-existing pregnancy.

Do you think parents should be notified when their children buy condoms?

If it was up to me, we would have one age of consent for the entire country. Seems silly that what you do in one state makes you a rapist in another. That said, I don't agree with girls under the age of consent being able to purchase this without their parents knowledge. Maybe it should be that they don't need parental permission, but the parents are notified of the purchase after the fact.

Would you rather see a theoretical and fantasy gain of the parental knowledge (also theoretically preventing this teen sex in this fantasy), which is just going to lead to children foregoing protection and having unprotected sex, or would you rather see the real world gain of fewer STDs and unplanned teen pregnancy?

I prefer making the real world better. If you prefer fantasy, maybe you should sit down and rethink things.

Kimothy:Good. Can't wait to see the fundies crying in their Cheerios over this one.

It's not quite a total victory, unfortunately, as the 15-or-older with ID limit is still in place. It'll be a proper victory when that age limit and ID requirement is lifted, and you can buy this like you'd buy aspirin.

Given our population demands, anything that avoids unwanted pregnancy should be as free as friggin' water at this point. But, again, there are knuckle-draggers that want to ensure that women who have sex out of wedlock are treated as less than human, and so they won't let something like this go without a fight.

Popcorn Johnny:How so? Parents have the right to know what their kids are doing.

Because the age of consent has nothing to do with a person purchasing medicine. As far as the law is concerned, now that the morning after pill is OTC, it's not any different (legally) than the 15 year old buying Advil or Claratin.

I get how they're connected in this context, but they're different laws governing different behavior.

Minors Acting as IndividualsA minor is considered "the individual" who can exercise rights under the rule in one of three circumstances. The first situation-and the one that is likely to occur most often-is when the minor has the right to consent to health care and has consented, such as when a minor has consented to treatment of an STD under a state minor consent law. The second situation is when the minor may legally receive the care without parental consent, and the minor or another individual or a court has consented to the care, such as when a minor has requested and received court approval to have an abortion without parental consent or notification. The third situation is when a parent has assented to an agreement of confidentiality between the health care provider and the minor, which occurs most often when an adolescent is seen by a physician who knows the family. In each of these circumstances, the parent is not the personal representative of the minor and does not automatically have the right of access to health information specific to the situation, unless the minor requests that the parent act as the personal representative and have access.

Parents' Access to InformationA minor who is considered "the individual" may exercise most of the same rights as an adult under the regulation, with one important exception. Provisions that are specific to unemancipated minors determine whether a parent who is not the minor's personal representative under the rule may have access to the minor's protected health information. On this issue, the HIPAA privacy rule defers to "state or other applicable law."

If a state or other law explicitly requires information to be disclosed to a parent, the rule allows a health care provider to comply with that law and to disclose the information. If a state or other law explicitly permits, but does not require, information to be disclosed to a parent, the rule allows a provider to exercise discretion to disclose or not. If a state or other law prohibits disclosure of information or records to a parent without the minor's consent, the rule does not allow a provider to disclose without the minor's permission. If state or other law is silent on the question of parents' access, a provider or health plan has discretion to determine whether to grant access to a parent who requests it. Although some comments on the proposed rule suggested that this decision should be made by the treating provider, the rule does not require this. In most situations of direct clinical care, it would be desirable for the treating provider to make determinations about access to a minor's protected health information. Where this is not feasible or appropriate, such as when health plans receive requests for records, the rule stipulates that at a minimum the determination must be made by a licensed health care professional exercising professional judgment.

Special Privacy ProtectionsTwo important provisions of the HIPAA privacy rule allow minors who are treated as "individuals" to request special privacy protections. First, these minors may request that health care providers and health plans communicate with them in a confidential manner: by e-mail rather than by phone, or at a place other than their home, for example.Also, they may request limitations on disclosure of information for treatment, payment or health care operations that could ordinarily occur without their authorization, although the extent to which providers and plans are required to honor such requests varies by the type of request and to whom it is made. These requests may be particularly important when a minor believes that disclosure of information would result in specific danger.

The privacy rule allows a health care provider or health plan not to treat a parent as a minor's personal representative, given a reasonable belief that the parent has subjected or may subject the minor to domestic violence, abuse or neglect, or that treating the parent as the personal representative could endanger the minor. The provider or plan must also decide that it is not in the minor's best interest to treat the parent as the personal representative. In addition, the rule allows a licensed health care professional to deny a parent who is a personal representative access to a minor's protected health information if, in the professional's judgment, access would likely cause substantial harm to the minor or someone else. Finally, it allows a provider or health plan to disclose a minor's protected health information in order to prevent or diminish an imminent threat to the health and safety of a person or the public. These provisions apply to adults as well as minors but have different implications for minors, specifically with respect to disclosure of information to parents.

Popcorn Johnny:So it's not legal for a 15 year old to consent to sex, but it's just fine if she buys a morning after pill without parental permission? Not really understanding the logic behind that decision.

Anthracite:TheOnion: Popcorn Johnny: So it's not legal for a 15 year old to consent to sex, but it's just fine if she buys a morning after pill without parental permission? Not really understanding the logic behind that decision.

Should we also ban the purchase of contraception?

Also, it's legal for a 15 year old to have sex with another 15 year old. And they do it all the time without worrying much about the law (and would continue to do so even if it were illegal). Since this is going to happen anyway, we would at least like to limit the number of children produced from the activity.

You are assuming that a 15 yr old has the brains to make that decision. I highly doubt it. There is a reason why they can't drive, vote or drink legally at that age.

I'm not assuming anything. 15 year olds have sex. It's a fact. The legality of the issue sure doesn't stop them either. The only question is do we want them to be able to legally purchase protection. If we say yes, we accept that they'll have sex, but the availability of protection should reduce the rate of STDs and unplanned pregnancy. If we say no, we accept that they'll have sex, but pay the price of increased STDs and unplanned pregnancy for the benefit of...something.

Ah yes, the argument from potential. So the idea is that more people on the planet is inherently good, regardless of Earth's ability to support them? By that logic every fertile woman who refuses to have sex with me is a baby killer.

Popcorn Johnny:So it's not legal for a 15 year old to consent to sex, but it's just fine if she buys a morning after pill without parental permission? Not really understanding the logic behind that decision.

The thing to remember here, kids, is that pissing against the wind just makes you piss-covered. What you should be doing is pissing against the wind into a receptacle of some kind. Abstinence is goddamn stupid what with those hormones we've got so, as a right-to-center libertarian, I approve this idea wholeheartedly.

My wife is a conservative and she also approves. If kids are gonna be stupid no matter what, we may as well do something useful for them rather then talking about not being stupid.

I'm honestly amazed at the number of "parents have the right to know what their children are doing!!" posts. Do you think all parents are calm, rational and sensible who will agreeable take their daughter to the drug store to buy Plan B?

Think about this for a minute. How would your parents have reacted if you had told them you needed this when you were a teenager?

I once asked my mother a question about sex. She grabbed my arm, squeezed, dug in her nails so she could pull me close in for an angry, hissing "nice people don't talk about those things" lecture. I had a bruise for days. She also thought you couldn't use tampons if you were a virgin. Was this a person who should be giving anyone advice and guidance about sex? How do you think she would have reacted to the news that I needed the morning after pill? What sort of physical and emotional abuse would have followed?

teenage mutant ninja rapist:What you say about me makes no sense. All I want is the same rights to be involved in my childerens life that a woman would have.

And you have that right, to the point that fetus develops into a neonate and pops out of the woman's uterus. You do not have the right, on the other hand, to force that woman to undergo an emotionally and psychologically devastating medical procedure against her will, which carries risks up to and including death to the mother.

teenage mutant ninja rapist:I have all the responsibilities one could have thrust on them.what I dont have is any of the rights and/or freedoms.

And you have the right to legal recourse for that. Isn't America Great? It's where someone I love can't be forced to have an abortion because you decided to love it with no glove on it.

teenage mutant ninja rapist:I dont want victims at all. How many times have I said birth control is a human right. How many times have I said a child is a 50/50 situation.

And how many times does it have to be pointed out to you that a fetus, completely dependant on a woman's body for survival until that cord is cut at 24+ weeks, is not a 50/50 situation, and you do not have the right to force that decision on someone against their will?

This is not about birth control. If you cared about birth control, you'd have CHOSEN not to ejaculate into an unprotected woman's vagina after your four seconds of vigorous lovemaking.

trialpha:hardinparamedic: Because our society has deemed it unacceptable that a man can force a woman to undergo an invasive and physically and emotionally taxing procedure against her will.

This is the correct decision, and I doubt many are arguing against it.

But it raises the question - why is it then acceptable for the women (by nature of her decision to keep the child) to force a man to pay 18 years of child support (depending on the man's circumstances, physically and emotionally taxing) against his will?

Child support isn't something women have forced on men - it's something that's there in the interests of the child. Women pay child support too, in cases where it's the man raising the child by himself.

I'm not sure there's anything more pathetic than whiny entitled men acting like victims. And yet they're so abundant when you give them an internet connection and anonymity. Some day men will get a fair shake in this country, nay -- this world! And you brave keyboard warriors are leading the charge. Onward, eternally victimized men! Towards victory!

A lot of pissed off would-be deadbeat dads in this thread. Moral of the story: don't fark anyone you either a) wouldn't be willing to have a kid with or b) couldn't convince to morning after/abort if necessary. I know it's so passé in this day and age to accept there are consequences for your actions but sadly real life isn't a ke$ha song.

Raharu:birth control should be a human right in the same vein as food and water

It should, but they do not make it easy. I've written many times of the hell I went through trying to get sterilized before I just gave up. Because I'm a woman who has not had any babies, nobody will do it, in case I "change my mind." I can even understand them thinking that was a possibility when I was in my early 20s, but by the time I hit my 30s, and there were records of years of me asking, I don't think it was an unreasonable request. It honestly seems like it is easier to have a full on sex change than for an unmarried woman who has never had a baby to get her tubes tied. (Even when I was married, which was the last time I bothered asking, they still said no.)

And some of the treatment I got from doctors was appalling. One grabbed me by the shoulders and yelled at me that she "would not let me make that mistake." At the time, I was having a difficult time with the pill and we couldn't find one without side effects. I finally shopped around until I found someone willing to give an IUD to someone who had never had a baby (which is also difficult, but has become less difficult over the years, as I understand.) I remember asking the doctor if they would pay for the abortion if I ended up getting pregnant because they weren't allowing me to take control of my body. And I asked if I had to go through menopause before anyone understood that I really and truly am never having kids (answer: "probably.")

So, yes, I agree. Birth control - whatever one chooses to use, so long as it is safe and effective - should be a human right.

At the same time, I do think there needs to be education about the morning after pill. Such as the fact that it's not reliable as a sole method of birth control. (I have no idea if the price will change when it goes OTC, but the time I bought it, it was $75, so depending, that might be the first clue.) It also has to be used correctly, when used, and moreso than most OTC medications. I wish that the normal pill was available OTC, honestly, I'm just not sure if that is medically safe or sound, to be honest, since there can be side effects or it should not be used by women with high blood pressure or women who smoke.

All of this said, you'd think those of us on both sides of the abortion issue would be happy about increased access to anything that will cut down on the number of abortions that are necessary. As pro-choice as I am, I obviously think it's better if women don't have to have a surgical procedure if it can be avoided. I know that isn't the case, but you'd think everyone's goal would be "less abortions necessary."

Nope. They dont. You have a right to keep a watchfull eye on your child. If you fail in that respect its your own damn fault.

birth control should be a human right in the same vein as food and water

Just jumped right the cliff with the shark, didn't you?

Not everything you think people deserve is a human right.

True, but you know what. I honestly believe birth control is one of the best things ever invented.Giving women and men the ability to enjoy themselves, and yet not be shackled to biology, opens so many doors.

Actually, the UN has taken the position that reproductive health is a human right. This includes birth control. And that's absolutely the correct position, because easy, safe, and affordable access to reproductive health goods and services is a matter not only of individual health and welfare, but it's also a significant public health issue.

megarian:PistolGripPump: Now, I'm not trolling nor am I trying to add to the flamewar above, and I do not have data to prove the following statement, so please be gentle. As someone who works in the STD "industry" and has seen the growth in antibiotic-resistant strains of Gonorrhea as well as new resurgence in Syphilis cases, my only concern with the OTC status of Plan B would be it leading to a decrease in use of other contraceptive methods that prevent the spread of STDs as well as pregnancy. If young people decide to use Plan B as Plan A and neglect to use other forms of contraception (it feels better without latex barriers, you know what I mean), this could be a very bad thing for our country (but job security for me?).

That's...that's an extremely good point.

I've heard that for some people Plan B can make you feel like crap for a few day. For them it is unlikely to become the preferred form of birth control. Then again some people drink a lot and have a severe hangover the next day and for some that doesn't stop them from drinking so much.

bugontherug:ontariolightning: Aboot time Americans. Plan B has no age limit in Canada and sold over the counter / on the shelves. This is the stuff that can help prevent future abortions. Great day for the

So a thirteen year old in Canada can just walk up to the pharmacy counter and buy Plan B, no questions asked?

You are seriously over thinking this, so I am going to ask you a simple question: Why would a thirteen year old girl (I assume you mean girl) buy plan B?

The answer is very simple. She buys plan B because she is sexually a active. If a thirteen year old is sexually active, buying plan B is the very least of her problems. And if your daughter is having sex at thirteen years old, you have either monumentally failed as a parent or you are a child molester. Either way, plan B is the very least of that girl's

GoldSpider:Popcorn Johnny: How so? Parents have the right to know what their kids are doing.

See, that's just one of those things that parents today have to warm up to. Your kids have the right to hide anything they're up to from you, including medical conditions and medications they're taking, but you are still on the hook if they get themselves in legal trouble.

You sound a lil whiny about the fact that you might have to help your kids when they make stupid mistakes.

Infernalist:PistolGripPump: Now, I'm not trolling nor am I trying to add to the flamewar above, and I do not have data to prove the following statement, so please be gentle. As someone who works in the STD "industry" and has seen the growth in antibiotic-resistant strains of Gonorrhea as well as new resurgence in Syphilis cases, my only concern with the OTC status of Plan B would be it leading to a decrease in use of other contraceptive methods that prevent the spread of STDs as well as pregnancy. If young people decide to use Plan B as Plan A and neglect to use other forms of contraception (it feels better without latex barriers, you know what I mean), this could be a very bad thing for our country (but job security for me?).

This is a solid point. It bears repeating that this Plan B thing is only 'part' of a responsible approach to your sex life and shouldn't be seen as a silver bullet approach to safe sex.

In short, people still need to wear condoms and be careful who they bump uglies with.

Just to drive the point home, let's include a condom in every Plan B package. It won't prevent what you're trying to stop, of course, but it would associate prophylaxis with contraception.

bugontherug:ontariolightning: Aboot time Americans. Plan B has no age limit in Canada and sold over the counter / on the shelves. This is the stuff that can help prevent future abortions. Great day for the

So a thirteen year old in Canada can just walk up to the pharmacy counter and buy Plan B, no questions asked?

If you really want your day ruined, there are no limits on abortion in Canada. Third trimester? Legs in the stirrups, please.

No legal restrictions. Only access and funding problems I guess. You'd have to ask someone from America's hat whether I'm correct or not.

Anthracite:TheOnion: Popcorn Johnny: So it's not legal for a 15 year old to consent to sex, but it's just fine if she buys a morning after pill without parental permission? Not really understanding the logic behind that decision.

Should we also ban the purchase of contraception?

Also, it's legal for a 15 year old to have sex with another 15 year old. And they do it all the time without worrying much about the law (and would continue to do so even if it were illegal). Since this is going to happen anyway, we would at least like to limit the number of children produced from the activity.

You are assuming that a 15 yr old has the brains to make that decision. I highly doubt it. There is a reason why they can't drive, vote or drink legally at that age.

No he isn't. He's (correctly) recognizing the fact that nothing is going to stop 15 year olds from farking. This will reduce the number of pregnancies which will result. There is no evidence or reason to believe that it will increase underage sex.

Girls and women who use this and who get abortions can go onto have children. Kids they maybe wouldn't have had if they were forced to have this one. Kids they in all likelihood will be better equipped to raise, since studies show women tend to make good judgements as to whether or not they can afford a child when they have an abortion. But no, lost kids.

Popcorn Johnny:How so? Parents have the right to know what their kids are doing.

Not if the kids are 18 or older. HIPAA specifically forbids that. Even if the kids are still under their parent's insurance, the parents do not have a legal right to find out what treatment their child receives.

yourmomlovestetris:I have to laugh at feminists who scream for a woman's right to an abortion, then turn around and advocate for laws against prostitution. If they really cared about a woman's right to do whatever she wanted with her own body, they wouldn't care if she chose to monetize her sexuality. It would be her body, her choice. (I'm of course, talking about regulated prostitution, not "drug addict being slapped around by a pimp" prostitution.)

For that matter, why shouldn't a woman be allowed to imbibe or inhale whatever drug she wants? If we agree that people's choices about their own bodies are sacrosanct, then why are illegal drugs criminalized? Shouldn't a person be allowed to put whatever drug they want into their own body?

I'm pro-choice.Pro-legalizing prostitution (which would pretty much end women being abused by pimps AND cut down on disease)Pro-legalizing drugs. ALL drugs. There are laws that deal with committing crimes while on drugs or driving under the influence. FAR more crimes would be eliminated.While we're at it, I think gambling should be legal. So should gay marriage. And polygamous marriage.

Consenting adults should be able to do what they want with their lives/bodies. That right should only stop when it affects someone else in a criminal way.

spman:The average 15 year old today is far too busy playing Yu Gi Oh or Call or Duty or whatever nonsense the kids are into now, to be bothered socializing with females. I know more people today ranging in age from 16-30 that aren't having sex, and couldn't find someone to have sex with even if they wanted to, than in any other time in history, and most of them don't even care and don't want to try, so the whole hormones, human nature, kids are going to be kids argument is a load of bunk.

Wow. That could be the stupidest thing I've ever read. Kids don't have raging hormones? The urge to procreate isn't part of human nature? Kids aren't going to be kids?

It's impossible to get birth control without having to beg some stupid doctor.

Five minutes at planned parenthood or the local health department would prove otherwise.

You don't have to "beg" anyone for birth control. On the same venue, no reasonable doctor is going to give you a hormonal contraceptive if you have a history of breast cancer, or are a high risk patient (DVT/PE, Clotting Abnormalities, etc).

skozlaw:doczoidberg: Why the hell is this available over the county, but you still need a prescription to get regular birth control???

You don't.

But since you mean therapeutic, hormonal birth control, because it has potentially serious side effects and a doctor should be involved in the process to ensure that something doesn't go terribly wrong.

You wouldn't want to give it to a smoker with a history of blood clots, for example.

What are you talking about?

It's impossible to get birth control without having to beg some stupid doctor.

fiddlehead:Okay, so a woman and a man conceive a child, but the man wants nothing to do with it.

Woman's responsibilities:9 months of pregnancy then delivery, with all the potential risks and complicationsActually raising the childFinancial obligations

Man's responsibilities:Financial obligations.

But MEN are the real victims here!

I don't have a problem with mandatory support obligations being imposed on fathers. Children have a valid claim of support against both parents.

The problem in the US legal system is that it fails to recognize that the claim belongs to the child, but is frequently used by the mother as a weapon against her ex-husband/boyfriend. It's not her money. Of course, someone needs to spend the child's money for him/her, since children can't handle money on their own, but that disability of minority only imposes additional duties on the custodial parent -- as a kind of trustee for the child's money.

So, the only sensible way to handle the payment of child support (usually made by fathers) is to require custodial parents (who are usually mothers, at least for children 10 and under) to maintain a separate account for the child. They should also be required to account for all expenditures, to the court and to the father, under oath, as to what the money is being used for. And the penalty for a mother's misuse of her child's funds should be as severe as the father's non-payment of child support, which (for those of you who may not be familiar) are severe. As in "be taken straight from the family courtroom to the jail that the bailiff keeps behind the unmarked door." I'm all for equality.

After all, when the US government gives welfare money (food stamps/EBT, for SNAP or TANF funds) recipients (usually women) for dependent children (thereby assisting the destruction of families, by the by), the government does not merely cut them a check or a stack of cash. It restricts the kinds of things that you can buy with that EBT money. Of course, some of that EBT money gets spent at casinos, and some of it is swapped around with other black market traders to buy drugs and liquor, but at least there is an attempt at requiring the money that is given for a specific purpose is being used for that purpose.

Alimony should also be abolished in all cases. I'm all for equality. That would free up a lot of money for child support purposes.

And the disparate tax treatment of child support payers (usually men) versus recipient-trustees (usually women) is ridiculous. The man pays income taxes on the full amount of his earnings, but must give the child support payment directly to the recipient, so if he earns $45,000 and pays a nominal one-third of it to the mother/child as child support, he gets $30,000 but is taxed on the full $45,000. He gets no deduction for being married, so he pays the single person's rate. He also gets no deduction for having dependents! The mother gets that deduction. And the recipient (the mother) pays zero taxes on what she gets, and cannot even be asked to report it. In fact, she gets a "negative tax" (i.e., more welfare, this time administered by the IRS) in addition to the unreported income in the form of child support. The tax treatment of this income should be more equitable. I'm all for equality.

Also, no-fault divorce should be abolished, except where both spouses agree to it. Most no-fault divorces are filed by women. Men file about one-quarter of all divorces, and when they do, men assert a disproportionately larger number of fault-based claims (e.g., substance abuse and adultery). Divorcing your spouse against his/her will, when he/she has done nothing contrary to the promises and obligations of marriage, ought to be called by its proper term -- abandoning the marriage. The person who abandons a marriage ought to be allowed to do so (after all, it's a free country), but should still walk away with nothing.

Popcorn Johnny:If it was up to me, we would have one age of consent for the entire country. Seems silly that what you do in one state makes you a rapist in another. That said, I don't agree with girls under the age of consent being able to purchase this without their parents knowledge. Maybe it should be that they don't need parental permission, but the parents are notified of the purchase after the fact.

Biological Ali:teenage mutant ninja rapist: Every single athlete and soldier listed has a woman at home enjoying the benefits of it all without having to do shiat.

your point is moot

This is basically this guy's way of saying, "Why are you people still replying to me? I thought I'd made it clear I was trolling about ten posts ago."

It's kind of standard operating procedure on this site. Anytime there is a thread concerning female reproductive issues, there are 1. At least one troll whining about age of consent laws, and 2. A troll playing the part of bitter put-upon man who feels that his having to pay child support is the biggest injustice since the Bataan Death March on the Trail of Tears to Auschwitz.

I have to laugh at feminists who scream for a woman's right to an abortion, then turn around and advocate for laws against prostitution. If they really cared about a woman's right to do whatever she wanted with her own body, they wouldn't care if she chose to monetize her sexuality. It would be her body, her choice. (I'm of course, talking about regulated prostitution, not "drug addict being slapped around by a pimp" prostitution.)

For that matter, why shouldn't a woman be allowed to imbibe or inhale whatever drug she wants? If we agree that people's choices about their own bodies are sacrosanct, then why are illegal drugs criminalized? Shouldn't a person be allowed to put whatever drug they want into their own body?

Doesn't matter where it came from or how silly of a joke it was. Eye sees the word "rapist," brain subconsciously links it to violence against women. Want your arguments on this topic to have more weight? Use a different handle.

teenage mutant ninja rapist:it can harm me. Family court is the most blatantly sexist thing in north american society. Harms men everyday.

Which is why we offer men an epidural before they go to family court? I'm talking about physical harm here. Not perceived slights, not hurt feelings or emptied pocketbooks. I'm talking about having your body wrecked or at the very least your hole torn to shiat while pushing an entire person through it.

teenage mutant ninja rapist:I dont argue with statistics. Or things Ive heard. Everything I say is based off of things that either happend to me or Ive seen happen to others.

So your entire opinion is based completely on flawed, anecdotal evidence? Some of it even secondhand? Well now nobody has any reason to listen to ANY of your arguments. Want your arguments on ANY topic to have more weight? Do some f-ing research and post some facts and sources. Most folks treat anecdotes, rightfully, as bullshiat.

Interesting that you only love women who aren't potential sex partners. And yet you don't list your biological mother as one you love, only your stepmother. This is actually very, VERY telling. We're beginning to get a much clearer picture of you here. *puffs Freud pipe*

You sure are a big fan of generalizations. With only anecdotes to back up your worldview, one would think you'd be more careful about that.

teenage mutant ninja rapist:heres how it works. Nice girl meets a prick of a man. He makes her a biatch. She meets a nice guy. Turns him into a prick. Wash rinse repeat.

Yikes...you have a truly sad and simplistic view on how things work, huh? I'm really sorry that whatever woman, mom or whoever, hurt you in the past, but you really need to realize that life and interpersonal relationships just aren't usually like what you've described. Get out there, man, meet some decent folks. Change your paradigm.

Your posts kinda make it look like you do, and I'm being objective here. There have been a few other posters in this thread who come off that way, too. Also, having "rapist" in your handle isn't doing you any favors.

Most don't, but as for the ones that do, I'd say it's because we frequently treat them like shiat and then claim that WE'RE the victims, even though women frequently get the short end of the stick and we benefit from it.

Nope. They dont. You have a right to keep a watchfull eye on your child. If you fail in that respect its your own damn fault.

birth control should be a human right in the same vein as food and water

Just jumped right the cliff with the shark, didn't you?

Not everything you think people deserve is a human right.

True, but you know what. I honestly believe birth control is one of the best things ever invented.Giving women and men the ability to enjoy themselves, and yet not be shackled to biology, opens so many doors.

Actually, the UN has taken the position that reproductive health is a human right. This includes birth control. And that's absolutely the correct position, because easy, safe, and affordable access to reproductive health goods and services is a matter not only of individual health and welfare, but it's also a significant public health issue.

Fark the UN, too. Health and well-being are not human rights. It is not incumbent upon others to provide them to you. It may be in the self-interest of others, but that's a different story.

The anti abortion thumpers aren't concerned about "abortions" in this case. Their goal is to stop people from farking, unless it's in the dark, with wedding rings on, in the missionary position, in silence, under the blankets, with only the pubic areas exposed and touching, and only when ab-so-farking-lutely necessary to impregnate the female. Otherwise there will be CONSEQUENCES! *cue fiery pits of hell music*

Phins:I LOVE my current doctor because when I called for my first appointment with her, wanting to discuss Essure, I asked the receptionist if it was a requirement that I already had children. She said "no, the only requirement is that you don't want to have children in the future." The doctor never questioned my desire to never have children, she just answered my questions, made some additional recommendations and then did what I decided I wanted. That's a very rare thing.

In 2008, my SO and I were looking to become permanently child-free, despite neither of us having kids. We were just married. We went to an info session at the local Kaiser Permanente and they said, "You can do either a tubal ligation, a vasectomy, or both. Both are permanent; the TL is an invasive procedure that has a longer recovery period. Neither requires you to have consent of your spouse. TL has a 12-month waiting period, the vasectomy 6 weeks. What do you want to do?" Vasectomy it was! But this was in CA, so it may be more difficult in the more "woman exist solely to birth babies" states.

serpent_sky: serpent_sky:GoldSpider: Raharu: I have no kids, but I could go get a vasectomy scheduled tomorrow if I wanted. Just another way our society treats the ladies differently from men.

And an adult woman can get a tubal ligation scheduled tomorrow if she wanted. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this line.

See my post... not really.

I tried for years, with Planned Parenthood and multiple private doctors, and they all said no. They are not eager to do tubal ligations or Essure on women in general, but especially not women who have never had a baby, and especially not young women who have never had a baby. Men have it significantly easier when it comes to getting a vasectomy - they're not considered as high of a risk for "changing their minds." (And while I am sure <i>some</i> women do change their mind, I don't imagine all that many people have surgery that can't be reversed without giving it a lot of thought and changed minds are probably very rare.)

It's really not easy, and most doctors won't agree to do it.

I tried without success as well. One doctor said "oh no dear, not until you've had your children." Another said, "no, then you couldn't have children" as if I didn't know that a tubal meant not having children. That's why I want it you stupid biatch.

For some reason, most people don't believe a woman who says she never wants to have children. She's immediately told she'll change her mind. I've had people I've just met tell me there must be something wrong with me or that I'm not a "real" woman.

So no, a adult woman cannot get a tubal tomorrow.

I LOVE my current doctor because when I called for my first appointment with her, wanting to discuss Essure, I asked the receptionist if it was a requirement that I already had children. She said "no, the only requirement is that you don't want to have children in the future." The doctor never questioned my desire to never have children, she just answered my questions, made some additional recommendations and then did what I decided I wanted. That's a very rare thing.

yourmomlovestetris:Does anyone know how far along research into a MALE birth control pill is? I know a lot of women either (a) flake and neglect to take their birth control or (b) genuinely try to take it properly but screw it up or (c) try to use pregnancy to hook a man, but are forced to have an abortion when he chooses to bail. (Not ALL women do this, of course, but it would be interesting to see what effect a non-condom based male BC method has on pregnancy rates. )

There's a fascinating technique that involves injecting a gel substance into the vas deferens. Sperm are killed as they pass through it. IDK how that affects their taste. But it's supposed to last up to 10 years between injections. It's used in India and the FDA is looking at it for the U. S.

QFTHere comes the science:Plan B prevents ovulation. Plan B contains a high dose of synthetic progestin which prevents the release of an egg from the ovary.

See the link I posted up about 4-5 posts. From last summer. Scientists still aren't sure how it works. You shouldn't be, either.

Your argument is all over the place. First you believed that Plan B blocked the attachment of fertilized eggs. I quote you:

This quibbling over placental attachment is cowardly nonsense. A fertilized egg contains the DNA of a unique human being. Plan B is to kill it before it becomes too troublesome. Deal with that.

Then you've linked to an article which states:

The notion that morning-after pills prevent eggs from implanting stems from the Food and Drug Administration's decision during the drug-approval process to mention that possibility on the label - despite lack of scientific proof, scientists say, and objections by the manufacturer of Plan B, the pill on the market the longest. Leading scientists say studies since then provide strong evidence that Plan B does not prevent implantation, and no proof that a newer type of pill, Ella, does. Some abortion opponents said they remain unconvinced.

And from that you somehow come to the conclusion that scientists aren't sure how it works, when in fact it is abortion opponents who don't know how it works. The abortion opponents believe a statement made in absence of proof. That's how religion works, not science.

You have aggressively stated "Deal with that." and told me "Scientists still aren't sure how it works. You shouldn't be, either." I appreciate your enthusiasm but advise you to get your facts straight before getting in my face.

My original statement: Less unwanted pregnancies. Less abortions. I don't see a downside to this.

HoratioGates:The only problem I have with Plan B is I really can see some guys drugging girls with it. I don't know if anyone has thought to do it yet, but it might not be a bad idea to make it have a really obvious taste, maybe even some dye so it can't be mixed in food. That's probably a good idea for several drugs on the market.

serpent_sky:I'm not. I think that in order to afford a woman the absolute right to control her own body, which is essential, and her own life, a man must be afforded the same freedom and rights and if a man wants to walk away, if a man would have aborted the fetus if it were his body, and does not want to be a parent, he should be able to walk away. The woman who makes her choice on her own should have to deal with it on her own, and not by obligating someone else to come along for 18 years if he doesn't want to.

It really is the only fair way. In no way can I be okay with compelling a woman to abort, nor to carry a pregnancy to term, as it's her body. But compelling a man to support a child he did not want is also wrong. There's really no way to do anything about the man who would want the child when the woman doesn't, but there is at least a way to allow a man to walk away in the way that a woman can choose to abort.

I'm female and completely okay with this as a proposed system. I'd like it if both parties stated their intentions for any knock-ups that might result prior to mating taking place, but not everybody finds the subtle change over some years from "we must not get knocked up" to "that wouldn't be a complete disaster" to "either way, I'll be with you forever," to "maybe not today, but soon, could we?" to be particularly romantic pillow-talk.

If a woman gets knocked up, the father opts-out and she can't afford to raise the kid alone, she can choose abortion or open adoption and just be the kid's godmother or auntie. Open adoption is a surprisingly great option that the abortion/child support/various genders' rights debate tends to gloss over. And with the option of opt-out for both genders, it makes such things as single fatherhood by choice and couples who love one another but aren't ready for parenting and who decide instead to be loving godparents to an infertile couple's adopted kid much more likely and possible.

Also, I consider women who get knocked up on the sly to be letting the gender down, women who don't immediately consider equal-time custody the first option in child-support hearings to lack character and I, for one, intend to insist on a paternity test for my first kid despite my complete monogamy because women should take pride in their workmanship and encourage rigid quality-control standards. (Husband's an engineer. If it were possible to check future kid against ISO standards, I'd be looking into it.)

These pills can do any of three things depending on when in a woman's cycle they are taken:

1. prevent ovulation2. prevent fertilization3. prevent attachment

But Plan B doesn't prevent attachment. It doesn't do that. I'm not sure how many other ways to state the fact that it does not prevent attachment. Here is me trying: You are wrong. If you believe it prevents attachment, you believe a falsehood. If you say it prevents attachment, you are stating a falsehood. If you knowingly do so, it is not just a falsiloquium, it is a mendacium. I.e., you're lying.

From the Plan B website

Plan B One-Step® is one pill that has a higher dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone found in many birth control pills that healthcare professionals have been prescribing for several decades. Plan B One-Step® works in a similar way to help prevent pregnancy from happening. It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B One-Step® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of the sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).

serpent_sky:In no way did I argue that the woman should be forced to go through anything! It's our bodies and our lives, and therefore, we have the ultimate say and choice.However, I think that when we make that choice, if the man does not want to come along for the ride, that should be his choice as well. While there is no way to equal it out if he wants to have a baby and the woman doesn't (because that would be completely unconscionable in every way, to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth against her will), there is a way to allow the man to walk away as if nothing ever happened - by allowing him to sign away all rights and responsibilities. It's not entirely equal to abortion, no, but it's the best and most fair solution I can think of.

I am very glad to have the right to choose what to do or not do with my body and life. If I somehow chose to have a child against the will of the man who got me pregnant, though, I think he should have the right to walk away. I think every woman and every man should have those rights, and if it's not the easiest choice for the woman, well, so be it. It was her choice to make.

That's the point you're missing, though. It's not about you, or the man. It's about the offspring you created, and what's best for it.

GoldSpider:Oh, there it is; I knew there was a reason why you describe sex as such a violent, controlling, vile act. I'm really sorry your womyn's studies major hasn't earned you the adoration of your female peers, though frankly I don't understand why you're trying so hard.

Sex is a vile, controlling, and violent act for me, but that's because I'm into BDSM.

It's revolting to see men whine about the one aspect of our society that is tilted in a woman's favor while ignoring the hundreds of ways the very opposite is true. Gold Spider, you may be male but you're no man.

teenage mutant ninja rapist:Again. Birth control for everyone who wants it regardless of ages. My body my choice right.as far as womens rights goes. In north america its a dead issue. Women are given leeway and shown favoratism in every aspect of our society. From education to the legal system and everything in between.if women want to fight for other women. Go the fark to saudi arabia. Cause here in north america feminism = not so cleverly disguised sexism.Course ladies if you want to gang up on men your welcome to.but think of what would happen if as a gender men said "fark it. No more"Just saying. Us vs them is a stupid battle. But it is one that women cant win. Cant even really fight.equality is good. Sticking it to the opposite gender cause you heard things were hard for you gender generations ago is retarted.boys vs girls is something used by teachers in grade school.it is not a method with wich to conduct ones life

You do realize that, in the span of a single post, you've tried to simultaneously argue that:1) the culture here unfairly favors women, and discriminates against men in everything up to and including the legal system-but-2) if the men of the nation ever decided to change that, it would be a battle women can't possibly win...right?

GoldSpider:I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I can think of plenty of other reasons why he thinks I want to subjugate and control women, despite numerous posts here to the contrary (how many times do I have to explicitly declare I support abortion rights?).

I'm not infuriated by you in the least, so please stop patting yourself on the back like you're making me mad.

And it has nothing to do with being for, or against, abortion. Do you HONESTLY think that's what this conversation boils down to?

The fact of the matter is, yes. When you want to put up the idea that "Either you let me decide to abort an unwanted fetus or I should not have to pay for the next 18 years whargarbl", yes. You are seeking to subjugate and control someone.

teenage mutant ninja rapist:Man why cant more women think like this.common sense is the best approach to anything.liberalismconservatism.why cant the world as a whole embrace.pragmatism?

Because women's rights are a strange thing. Women want absolute rights - which we absolutely should have over our own bodies - but can't see that men should have rights, too. The idea of forcing a woman into motherhood is unconscionable to most people, but the same people think compelling a man to fatherhood is "holding him accountable" and "living up to his responsibility." I don't see how the two go hand-in-hand. If the decision to abort or not is ultimately the woman's, as it should be because it is her body and her health on the line, then it should be her decision on how she'll support the kid if she has it. If a man truly wants nothing to do with it, he should be able to sign away all responsibility -- and rights.

This is especially true when there are a lot of men tricked by women "on the pill" (who aren't) or other such situations, but I fail to see why it should matter.

Ideally, people would discuss what they would do in case of pregnancy before being intimate and come to a mutual agreement in advance, but let's be real. We're not often in our greatest common sense mode when we're about to get laid. Nobody should be punished or forced into a life or an obligation they don't want as a result of not thinking it through properly. I also realize this is a really unpopular opinion. All of this said? If men weren't pretty much default on the hook if a woman has a baby, how many women would be FAR more careful about what they were doing in general, and how many "ooops" pregnancies simply wouldn't happen?

GoldSpider:JenFromTheWood: And reiterated that while I do not condone her having sex (she hasn't yet) if something should ever happen and she has a reason to think contraception may have failed, to let me know immediately as she would now have a back up.

Now you may never know, on both counts.

GoldSpider-you're right that I may never know when she begins having sex. But I do know we talk a lot, she is on bc and is also very aware of the need to still use condoms, blah blah...so while I may not know when it happens, I am comfortable that she will tell me if she is ever in trouble. And I do this all while still managing to be a good person, unlike what the Jesus freaks would have us believe.

You don't give a shiat about rights. Or the responsibilities those rights bring you.

You just want to do whatever you want without having to face up to any consequences. And to me, that's sickening. Period. You want the ability to create victims with no reciprocation in the matter.

GoldSpider:Your irrational phobia of and hatred for people with a differing opinion you care not to understand amuses me. Rage more, please.

Oh, I see. When someone points out how idiotic you're acting and talking, it's an "irrational phobia". When someone calls you out for wanting to use your penis as an excuse to fark around with anyone with absolutely no consequences for not being responsible, it's "A differing opinion you care not to understand".

In reality, I do understand your opinion, far more than you realize. And I still find it insulting and disgusting. You want to perpetuate the idea that, in reality, men are too weak and inept to decide where and when they spill their seed, so they need to have "special rights" to decide how to rule the lives of others because of that, while decrying the existence of "special rights" for those other people.

You're nothing but an annoying, misogynistic hypocrite. And you deserve to be called to the carpet for it.

trialpha:hardinparamedic: Because our society has deemed it unacceptable that a man can force a woman to undergo an invasive and physically and emotionally taxing procedure against her will.

This is the correct decision, and I doubt many are arguing against it.

But it raises the question - why is it then acceptable for the women (by nature of her decision to keep the child) to force a man to pay 18 years of child support (depending on the man's circumstances, physically and emotionally taxing) against his will?

Chameleon:GoldSpider: Here's what I propose. Up to some point during the pregnancy (second trimester? I'm not entirely certain if there is a cutoff point after which an abortion is unsafe), an unwilling father may "opt out" of paying child support (and surrender any custody rights). At that point, the prospective mother can choose either way to either abort or have the child, having been informed well ahead of time that the father will not help raise it.

[imokaywiththis.jpg]

Except that child support exists in the interest of the child, so it would be pretty silly to just randomly start including exceptions like this.

Oh okay, so it's up to the government to raise our kids. Thanks for giving me the official Fark position.

You've spent half the thread begging and whining for it to do exactly that- to take on the responsibility of monitoring whether the child makes an OTC purchase. That's what parental notification ultimately amounts to, after all: "Keep tabs on this kid for me, and report back what you find out."

GoldSpider:So can she, but telling a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant to keep her legs closed is considered culturally regressive anymore.

Oh boo hoo. People can have sex and not get pregnant. I know the thought of not being able to control the life of another person both terrifies and fills you with anger, but it is what it is.

That's what this really boils down to. Wanting to enforce your control and semblance of morality onto others.

The fact of the matter is, as a man, you made the conscious decision to penetrate her. You made the decision not to wear a condom and not use spermicide. You made the decision to vigorously thrust yourself for four or five seconds until you reached climax, and then you made the decision to ejaculate inside of her.

So tell me again how you didn't have a choice in the matter?

Hint: Babies don't come from the ass, mouth, or any other anatomical part you have a fetish for, buddy.

BarkingUnicorn:Why do men get only one chance to avoid parenthood and women get at least three (abstinence, abortion, adoption)?

Because our society has deemed it unacceptable that a man can force a woman to undergo an invasive and physically and emotionally taxing procedure against her will.

teenage mutant ninja rapist:Dusk-You-n-Me: teenage mutant ninja rapist: Just becuase the woman gestates doesnt make her opinion more valid or worth more than a mans.

It's not about opinions, it's about decisions. And the decision to keep or abort a baby is solely the woman's. That's all I've been saying this entire time.

GoldSpider: Except legally they aren't a separate issue, not while laws are in place that automatically obligate an unwilling father to pay child support.

The only choice a man gets is whether or not to consent to sex. The woman gets the same choice. After they've both decided yes, what to do with a pregnancy is solely the woman's decision. That rubs a lot of men the wrong way because hey that's not equal! You know what else isn't equal? HOW BABIES ARE MADE. Women get pregnant, they get to make the decision that follows. That is, AGAIN, all I've been saying this whole time.

If a woman loves and cares for the man she is with than it is not her choice. It is a joint choice. Ultimatley falling on her yes. But still a woman has the choice to never become pregant if she wishes. Condoms tubes tied. IUDs depovera? The pill.

men have condoms. Crap shoot at best. So our opinion matters just as much

Popcorn Johnny:make me some tea: How is it people do not understand the concept of consent?

A 15 year old can't legally consent to sex in almost the entire country.

There is so much wrong with this simple sentence I am not sure where to begin.

OK, how about for starters:

* The FDA is a Federal organization; individual state laws don't really come into play. Pretty sure a state can still say "no" if they want (they just can't say "yes" if the FDA says "no"). I could be wrong on this latter sentence, but the former holds.

* A married 15-year-old can legally have as much sex as he or she wishes.

* A metric shiatload (~2.287 imperial shiatloads) of states do indeed have the AoC at 16; however, the vast majority of these states also have a "safe range" where such sex is not a crime. For instance, in Texas

The Texas Penal Code states that "It is an affirmative defense to the prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that:

• The actor cannot be more than 3 years older than the victim.• The victim was older than 14 years of age at the time the offense occurred.....

That's just one. Most states have some form of Age Gap provision. Even in states where it is illegal, most will probably not prosecute.

Oh okay, so it's up to the government to raise our kids. Thanks for giving me the official Fark position.

And thanks for educating us! Today I Learned that "parents should always know if their kids are accessing reproductive health services" is a new smokescreen for shaming women about their sexual awareness. Slut-shaming not working? Why not start hitting them even younger? Won't someone think of the children?

Oh okay, so it's up to the government to raise our kids. Thanks for giving me the official Fark position.

No, it's up to you to raise your kids. There are certain things society won't permit you to do to the kids unilaterally, and interfering with their reproductive choices is one of them. No different from animal cruelty laws, really.

Popcorn Johnny:So it's not legal for a 15 year old to consent to sex, but it's just fine if she buys a morning after pill without parental permission? Not really understanding the logic behind that decision.

That is because you are equating cause and effect. This is not rational. Please change the batteries in your logic centeral processer.

And the man has the same exact choice on whether or not to consent to sex. See how that works? AGAIN? I don't know how many times I have to go over this, then you retreat just a bit, then come right back with the same bullsh*t.

Popcorn Johnny:TaterTot_HotDish: If you don't want your kids having sex, using condoms, or buying Plan B, teach them not to do those things. Why do we have to make up for your shiatty parenting?

Lets just do away with the drinking age too, right?

It's not quite the same thing - alcohol is a poison that can kill you. Alcohol kills lots and lots of young people every year. Condoms and Plan B actually protect your health.

Having said that, yes, I think the drinking age should be much, much lower... having spent time in countries with effectively no drinking age I think they have a much less farked up attitude about alcohol than we do.

The world is a scary place with lots of dangers... if your 15 year old kid is making bad decisions, it might be because you didn't prepare him/her for life.

So yes -- if you want your kids to act a certain way, teach them to act that way. Don't expect society to act as your kid's parent because you aren't any good at the job.

hardinparamedic:Dusk-You-n-Me: GoldSpider: Except legally they aren't a separate issue, not while laws are in place that automatically obligate an unwilling father to pay child support.

The only choice a man gets is whether or not to consent to sex. The woman gets the same choice. After they've both decided yes, what to do with a pregnancy is solely the woman's decision. That rubs a lot of men the wrong way because hey that's not equal! You know what else isn't equal? HOW BABIES ARE MADE. Women get pregnant, they get to make the decision that follows. That is, AGAIN, all I've been saying this whole time.

Not sure if you're arguing with a troll, or a Men's Rights Activist follower.

Is it just me, or have the MRA folks really amped up their misogyny in the last year or so?

Popcorn Johnny:UNC_Samurai: So you're advocating an increased risk of child abuse? Good to know.

So I guess you're against schools notifying parents of what goes on, police notifying parents when their kid gets in trouble, setting curfews for kids, making kids do homework and ten thousand farking other things parents are entitled to know about the kids they raise.

Johnny, it's not about what parents are entitled to know. It's about what society expects from parents.

You're expected to make sure your kid stays out of trouble, does homework, gets home by 10, etc. So of course, you have to be told when you're failing.

When it comes to abortion, it isn't necessary to inform you. If you're down with it, it will happen. If you're opposed to it, it will happen. The only way it won't happen is if your child doesn't want it to happen.

Popcorn Johnny:UNC_Samurai: So you're advocating an increased risk of child abuse? Good to know.

So I guess you're against schools notifying parents of what goes on, police notifying parents when their kid gets in trouble, setting curfews for kids, making kids do homework and ten thousand farking other things parents are entitled to know about the kids they raise.

Nice strawman. Let's go back and look at what the good doctor posted, and you've ignored repeatedly:

hardinparamedic:Special Privacy ProtectionsTwo important provisions of the HIPAA privacy rule allow minors who are treated as "individuals" to request special privacy protections. First, these minors may request that health care providers and health plans communicate with them in a confidential manner: by e-mail rather than by phone, or at a place other than their home, for example. Also, they may request limitations on disclosure of information for treatment, payment or health care operations that could ordinarily occur without their authorization, although the extent to which providers and plans are required to honor such requests varies by the type of request and to whom it is made. These requests may be particularly important when a minor believes that disclosure of information would result in specific danger.

The privacy rule allows a health care provider or health plan not to treat a parent as a minor's personal representative, given a reasonable belief that the parent has subjected or may subject the minor to domestic violence, abuse or neglect, or that treating the parent as the personal representative could endanger the minor. The provider or plan must also decide that it is not in the minor's best interest to treat the parent as the personal representative. In addition, the rule allows a licensed health care professional to deny a parent who is a personal representative access to a minor's protected health information if, in the professional's judgment, access would likely cause substantial harm to the minor or someone else. Finally, it allows a provider or health plan to disclose a minor's protected health information in order to prevent or diminish an imminent threat to the health and safety of a person or the public. These provisions apply to adults as well as minors but have different implications for minors, specifically with respect to disclosure of information to parents.

If it's in the interests of preventing abuse, physical or otherwise, then it's legal (and a moral imperative) to NOT disclose the information to the parents.

My Ex had a scare and did that, and her GYN had a fit when she found out.

Dusk-You-n-Me:GoldSpider: Except legally they aren't a separate issue, not while laws are in place that automatically obligate an unwilling father to pay child support.

The only choice a man gets is whether or not to consent to sex. The woman gets the same choice. After they've both decided yes, what to do with a pregnancy is solely the woman's decision. That rubs a lot of men the wrong way because hey that's not equal! You know what else isn't equal? HOW BABIES ARE MADE. Women get pregnant, they get to make the decision that follows. That is, AGAIN, all I've been saying this whole time.

Not sure if you're arguing with a troll, or a Men's Rights Activist follower.

digitalrain:I am asking if you are cool with the idea of parents aborting their unborn child because it is the"wrong" gender. Or, extrapolating a little further, if DNA testing of the amniotic fluid (which doescarry the baby's cells) shows that the baby has the genetic predisposition for the "wrong" coloreyes or hair, would you be okay with aborting for those reason as well?

If you are pro-choice, you are pro-choice. What difference does it make what reason someone has for aborting? It's their life and their choice.

It's not about opinions, it's about decisions. And the decision to keep or abort a baby is solely the woman's. That's all I've been saying this entire time.

GoldSpider:Except legally they aren't a separate issue, not while laws are in place that automatically obligate an unwilling father to pay child support.

The only choice a man gets is whether or not to consent to sex. The woman gets the same choice. After they've both decided yes, what to do with a pregnancy is solely the woman's decision. That rubs a lot of men the wrong way because hey that's not equal! You know what else isn't equal? HOW BABIES ARE MADE. Women get pregnant, they get to make the decision that follows. That is, AGAIN, all I've been saying this whole time.

Popcorn Johnny:UNC_Samurai: So you're advocating an increased risk of child abuse? Good to know.

So I guess you're against schools notifying parents of what goes on, police notifying parents when their kid gets in trouble, setting curfews for kids, making kids do homework and ten thousand farking other things parents are entitled to know about the kids they raise.

At a certain age, you start losing your rights over your kids. You should probably start working on accepting that.

digitalrain:I am asking if you are cool with the idea of parents aborting their unborn child because it is the"wrong" gender. Or, extrapolating a little further, if DNA testing of the amniotic fluid (which doescarry the baby's cells) shows that the baby has the genetic predisposition for the "wrong" coloreyes or hair, would you be okay with aborting for those reason as well?

If you're asking my personal opinion, yes, I have a problem with abortion (not birth control or emergency contraception) being used for eugenics purposes. Being pro-choice does not make me cheer for abortions to happen. However, I do not have ANY problem with a person terminating their pregnancy if they learn their offspring will have a terminal or eventually fatal disease, like Huntingdon's Chorea or IEMs.

However, that's my personal opinion. And I sure as hell won't use it to force my will on others to control their womb.

Popcorn Johnny:They've already passed laws based on a decision that was just made today? Wow, that's some effective governing. I guarantee you that there are going to be a lot of states passing laws requiring parental notification for this.

That's nice. In reality, however, they passed laws around 10 years back for emergency contraception in many states which do not require parental permission or notification.

digitalrain:There was an article posted here on Fark last week I think about couples in AUS aborting their babiesbecause they turned out not to be the gender they wanted.

Are you cool with that?

And there was also, in that same article, enough information to let one know that only ONE case of that had occured in a clinic in Austrailia, and that parents seeking that to occur are generally turned away. And that 94% of all abortions in Austrailia happen below 12 weeks of gestation.

Well it seems to you wrong. I never ventured into what happens after the child is born. That is, AGAIN, a whole separate issue and your insistence on putting me on the other side of whatever slight you perceived in your relationship does not make it my opinion. This personal sh*t you've got going on, which I'm not making fun of because we've all got our problems, has nothing to do with me or my argument. If you feel like a victim, my argument has nothing to do with it.

Popcorn Johnny:That means that there can be situations that don't require consent, that's a hell of a lot different than the claim you made that parents don't have access to their kids medical care. This is clearly a situation where parents should have to be notified.

Except that HIPAA and State Laws say otherwise. Even when you move the goalposts, this doesn't change.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Please. Just admit you were wrong and move on. Admit that IN YOUR OPINION, they should be, and the law actually says something QUITE different than your Jailhouse Lawyer understanding of it?

Infernalist:Popcorn Johnny: Infernalist: Not really, no. Not when it comes to medical stuff. Didn't we go through this already?

You're 100% wrong and would know that if you spent 2.5 seconds researching it.

Link

There are three situations when the parent would not be the minor's personal representative under the Privacy Rule. These exceptions are:When the minor is the one who consents to care and the consent of the parent is not required under State or other applicable law

Heaven forbid a young women get access to contraception or fertilization prevention if her parents don't believe in providing it.

It sucks that there are situations where parents stand between their children and their children's health, but that is EXACTLY why everyone should have the right to reproductive health.

Igor Jakovsky:Isn't that so the Doctor who does the procedure doesn't get a lawsuit from a younger woman who changed their mind about having kids? Gotta love our tort system

I assume as much, but I would think that would be easily enough solved with some legal documents.

They perform sex change operations on people - use similar forms for someone who wants to be sterilized. I offered to get letters from my therapist and sign documents absolving the doctor of any responsibility if I ever changed my mind (knowing that I wouldn't) and they still wouldn't do it. I stood there and flat-out said, "If I should ever find myself pregnant, I will absolutely abort" and they just didn't care.

There should be no options for suing a doctor for performing elective surgery. Even if they put in safeguards of making someone wait, say, 6 months or a year, having them consult with a psychiatrist, and having them sign documents that they have no grounds to sue would be progress for those of us denied the rights to truly and fully control our reproductive system (and shut it down permanently.)

GoldSpider:Raharu: I have no kids, but I could go get a vasectomy scheduled tomorrow if I wanted. Just another way our society treats the ladies differently from men.

And an adult woman can get a tubal ligation scheduled tomorrow if she wanted. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this line.

See my post... not really.

I tried for years, with Planned Parenthood and multiple private doctors, and they all said no. They are not eager to do tubal ligations or Essure on women in general, but especially not women who have never had a baby, and especially not young women who have never had a baby. Men have it significantly easier when it comes to getting a vasectomy - they're not considered as high of a risk for "changing their minds." (And while I am sure <i>some</i> women do change their mind, I don't imagine all that many people have surgery that can't be reversed without giving it a lot of thought and changed minds are probably very rare.)

serpent_sky:Raharu: birth control should be a human right in the same vein as food and water

It should, but they do not make it easy. I've written many times of the hell I went through trying to get sterilized before I just gave up. Because I'm a woman who has not had any babies, nobody will do it, in case I "change my mind." I can even understand them thinking that was a possibility when I was in my early 20s, but by the time I hit my 30s, and there were records of years of me asking, I don't think it was an unreasonable request. It honestly seems like it is easier to have a full on sex change than for an unmarried woman who has never had a baby to get her tubes tied. (Even when I was married, which was the last time I bothered asking, they still said no.)

And some of the treatment I got from doctors was appalling. One grabbed me by the shoulders and yelled at me that she "would not let me make that mistake." At the time, I was having a difficult time with the pill and we couldn't find one without side effects. I finally shopped around until I found someone willing to give an IUD to someone who had never had a baby (which is also difficult, but has become less difficult over the years, as I understand.) I remember asking the doctor if they would pay for the abortion if I ended up getting pregnant because they weren't allowing me to take control of my body. And I asked if I had to go through menopause before anyone understood that I really and truly am never having kids (answer: "probably.")

So, yes, I agree. Birth control - whatever one chooses to use, so long as it is safe and effective - should be a human right.

At the same time, I do think there needs to be education about the morning after pill. Such as the fact that it's not reliable as a sole method of birth control. (I have no idea if the price will change when it goes OTC, but the time I bought it, it was $75, so depending, that might be the first clue.) It also has to be used correctly, when used, and mo ...

I have no kids, but I could go get a vasectomy scheduled tomorrow if I wanted. Just another way our society treats the ladies differently from men.

The first part is correct. The second part is the key. Men have one choice, whether or not to consent to sex. Women get two choices. Whether or not to consent to sex and what to do if a pregnancy is the result. Until men get pregnant, they have no control over the second choice.

legion_of_doo:parents should be involved in the health of their children. [more text goes here]

If parents were involved with the health of their children, or involved with their children in general, these pills wouldn't be used very often.Unfortunately, it's not yet legal to give beatings to bad parents, so we have stuff like this.

Nope. They dont. You have a right to keep a watchfull eye on your child. If you fail in that respect its your own damn fault.

birth control should be a human right in the same vein as food and water

Just jumped right the cliff with the shark, didn't you?

Not everything you think people deserve is a human right.

True, but you know what. I honestly believe birth control is one of the best things ever invented.Giving women and men the ability to enjoy themselves, and yet not be shackled to biology, opens so many doors.

Ever since the 'prosperity doctrine' became popular, it's basically boiled down to 'pray your way to wealth'.

That's all they're about anymore. Praying for personal prosperity and praying against things like the gays and abortion and the like.

They worship Mammon, but they don't know it yet.

oh I think some of them understand exactly what they're doing and who it is they really worship. they just don't care. so long as the $$$ rolls in, they're good with corrupting the bible to serve their purposes.

I honestly think the pagans, for all their faults, are a more honest faith. scattered and perhaps leaderless, they don't seem to be greedy or destructive as the organized mainstream evangelicals and their twisted perverse idea of Christ. I wish I could speak more about the Buddhists but I haven't actually had much contact with them.

Well, you don't see anything in the New Testament about immigrants, gays or evolution, but that doesn't stop them from freaking on those subjects, either.

true. the evangelicals don't actually worship the christian god(s), they follow a much older series of deities. blood, death, greed...we've seen those gods before.

Best not to talk about it too loudly, people will freak out.

I find the subject fascinating. I've been trying to classify what modern evangelicals (and US 'christians') actually believe...and none of their politics match up with what Christ demanded of his followers.

Ever since the 'prosperity doctrine' became popular, it's basically boiled down to 'pray your way to wealth'.

That's all they're about anymore. Praying for personal prosperity and praying against things like the gays and abortion and the like.

this is less disgusting than abortion, but a laissez faire attitude towards public health issues is as irresponsible as allowing banking to say "whatever I do what I want"

parents should be involved in the health of their children. "kids will be kids" is not parenting, and never has been. if boys act in an irresponsible way, you intervene. why shouldn't the same apply too girls? somehow, when sex is involved, both the fundies and the libtards get crazy unrealistic opinions... it's frustrating. if we can stop guns and violent video games going directly to kids, why not drugs with obvious areas where parents should be informed?

I'm sorry. just because you disagree with some (backwards) parents doesn't mean your way is right either.

I do know girls who got pregnant in high school and had their babies, so all the screeching about "ruined for life" is as equally damning from the moralist fundies as from the child killing left.

I appreciate the administration trying to have a measured response to the courts, however. bravo Obama.

Well, you don't see anything in the New Testament about immigrants, gays or evolution, but that doesn't stop them from freaking on those subjects, either.

true. the evangelicals don't actually worship the christian god(s), they follow a much older series of deities. blood, death, greed...we've seen those gods before.

Best not to talk about it too loudly, people will freak out.

I find the subject fascinating. I've been trying to classify what modern evangelicals (and US 'christians') actually believe...and none of their politics match up with what Christ demanded of his followers.

Hey, I've got a crazy idea: How about if everybody who isn't capable of bearing children shut the fark up about what you think someone else should do in the areas of birth control and pregnancy? If you can't do it, you don't get to have an opinion, per the Basic Rule of Life #7: Mind Your Own Farking Business.

cchris_39:No, you're thinking of "ineffective". Contraindicated means increased risk of complications, to what degree in this case I freely admit I don't know, but would be interested if anyone does.

Actually, it says that because the FDA Considers it to be a Catagory X drug for Pregnancy, meaning it has either confirmed or has a high suspicion of causing either miscarriages or teratogenic effects to the developing embryo/fetus.

PistolGripPump:Now, I'm not trolling nor am I trying to add to the flamewar above, and I do not have data to prove the following statement, so please be gentle. As someone who works in the STD "industry" and has seen the growth in antibiotic-resistant strains of Gonorrhea as well as new resurgence in Syphilis cases, my only concern with the OTC status of Plan B would be it leading to a decrease in use of other contraceptive methods that prevent the spread of STDs as well as pregnancy. If young people decide to use Plan B as Plan A and neglect to use other forms of contraception (it feels better without latex barriers, you know what I mean), this could be a very bad thing for our country (but job security for me?).

Kidding, kinda, you could contend that the OTC Plan B is part of a plan to decrease the undereducated population. 1) less babies and 2) more spread of a disease until, in the long run like with TB, it becomes impossible to treat and causes sterilization of those who contract it, like chlamydia. (And, therefore, less babies)

I imagine somewhere is a room of rich old white men who are in agreement that there are only so many resources, but far too many people. The only answer is to let the bottom part of the Bell Curve dispose of itself. Smoking, reckless behavior, inadequate medical care access, etc...

With that theory, and my tinfoil hat tipped at a rakish angle, it somehow makes sense...

make me some tea:Thisbymaster: make me some tea: Popcorn Johnny: Aarontology: Because they're two entirely different issues.

How so? Parents have the right to know what their kids are doing.

Minors still have a right to have control over their own body and their own future.

What about the parents who force the girl to have the kid against her will?

Sex is gonna happen. It's nature.

Murder and Rape is gonna happen. it's nature. See how that doesn't work?

How is it people do not understand the concept of consent?

It's got nothing to do with 'consent' and everything to do with the concept of 'sin'. Sex is bad and people should only have it in the dark, quietly and neither party should enjoy it.

anything that enables people(ESPECIALLY WOMEN) to have sex safely is an evil tool of Satan and liberals.

You see, to them, a baby isn't a miracle of life and something to celebrate and carefully plan. A baby is a PUNISHMENT for having sex outside of marriage. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!"

In the interests of both disclosure and giving someone something to be butthurt about, I will say that I am morally opposed to abortion, but there are a few reasons why I say that I think this is a good thing:

1) It's none of my business.2) There are two things that I am sure of-there is a God, and I'm not him. I have no right to judge.3) Since this prevents implantation, it's not strictly speaking abortion.

TheShavingofOccam123:Dr. Goldshnoz: You just watch, this is going to cause crime, destroy the innocence of our children, bring the wraith of god upon us, destroy american society, and cause the further advance the women's war on men.

You just watch.

I don't think so. According to Pat Robertson and the late (yay!) Jerry Falwell, homos are to blame for all those things. Homos and lezzies. Homos, lesbians, and pagans. Homos, lesbians, pagans, and...oh forget it. Let's just call it "everyone who doesn't watch Pat Robertson".

Kimothy:Staffist: Kimothy: Good. Can't wait to see the fundies crying in their Cheerios over this one.

Why would they cry? Poor women are three times more likely to seek abortions than rich women and poor women are far more likely to vote Democrat. This will keep more potential Democrats from being born. The fundies are probably secretly overjoyed that the people most likely to seek abortions are those most likely to oppose them politically, regardless of what they say.

spman:TheOnion: Anthracite: TheOnion: Popcorn Johnny: So it's not legal for a 15 year old to consent to sex, but it's just fine if she buys a morning after pill without parental permission? Not really understanding the logic behind that decision.

Should we also ban the purchase of contraception?

Also, it's legal for a 15 year old to have sex with another 15 year old. And they do it all the time without worrying much about the law (and would continue to do so even if it were illegal). Since this is going to happen anyway, we would at least like to limit the number of children produced from the activity.

You are assuming that a 15 yr old has the brains to make that decision. I highly doubt it. There is a reason why they can't drive, vote or drink legally at that age.

I'm not assuming anything. 15 year olds have sex. It's a fact. The legality of the issue sure doesn't stop them either. The only question is do we want them to be able to legally purchase protection. If we say yes, we accept that they'll have sex, but the availability of protection should reduce the rate of STDs and unplanned pregnancy. If we say no, we accept that they'll have sex, but pay the price of increased STDs and unplanned pregnancy for the benefit of...something.

The average 15 year old today is far too busy playing Yu Gi Oh or Call or Duty or whatever nonsense the kids are into now, to be bothered socializing with females. I know more people today ranging in age from 16-30 that aren't having sex, and couldn't find someone to have sex with even if they wanted to, than in any other time in history, and most of them don't even care and don't want to try, so the whole hormones, human nature, kids are going to be kids argument is a load of bunk.

PistolGripPump:Now, I'm not trolling nor am I trying to add to the flamewar above, and I do not have data to prove the following statement, so please be gentle. As someone who works in the STD "industry" and has seen the growth in antibiotic-resistant strains of Gonorrhea as well as new resurgence in Syphilis cases, my only concern with the OTC status of Plan B would be it leading to a decrease in use of other contraceptive methods that prevent the spread of STDs as well as pregnancy. If young people decide to use Plan B as Plan A and neglect to use other forms of contraception (it feels better without latex barriers, you know what I mean), this could be a very bad thing for our country (but job security for me?).

This is a solid point. It bears repeating that this Plan B thing is only 'part' of a responsible approach to your sex life and shouldn't be seen as a silver bullet approach to safe sex.

In short, people still need to wear condoms and be careful who they bump uglies with.

TheOnion:Anthracite: TheOnion: Popcorn Johnny: So it's not legal for a 15 year old to consent to sex, but it's just fine if she buys a morning after pill without parental permission? Not really understanding the logic behind that decision.

Should we also ban the purchase of contraception?

Also, it's legal for a 15 year old to have sex with another 15 year old. And they do it all the time without worrying much about the law (and would continue to do so even if it were illegal). Since this is going to happen anyway, we would at least like to limit the number of children produced from the activity.

You are assuming that a 15 yr old has the brains to make that decision. I highly doubt it. There is a reason why they can't drive, vote or drink legally at that age.

I'm not assuming anything. 15 year olds have sex. It's a fact. The legality of the issue sure doesn't stop them either. The only question is do we want them to be able to legally purchase protection. If we say yes, we accept that they'll have sex, but the availability of protection should reduce the rate of STDs and unplanned pregnancy. If we say no, we accept that they'll have sex, but pay the price of increased STDs and unplanned pregnancy for the benefit of...something.

The average 15 year old today is far too busy playing Yu Gi Oh or Call or Duty or whatever nonsense the kids are into now, to be bothered socializing with females. I know more people today ranging in age from 16-30 that aren't having sex, and couldn't find someone to have sex with even if they wanted to, than in any other time in history, and most of them don't even care and don't want to try, so the whole hormones, human nature, kids are going to be kids argument is a load of bunk.

Now, I'm not trolling nor am I trying to add to the flamewar above, and I do not have data to prove the following statement, so please be gentle. As someone who works in the STD "industry" and has seen the growth in antibiotic-resistant strains of Gonorrhea as well as new resurgence in Syphilis cases, my only concern with the OTC status of Plan B would be it leading to a decrease in use of other contraceptive methods that prevent the spread of STDs as well as pregnancy. If young people decide to use Plan B as Plan A and neglect to use other forms of contraception (it feels better without latex barriers, you know what I mean), this could be a very bad thing for our country (but job security for me?).

I sincerely doubt that a single 15 year old out there will have any issues at all getting this if they truly want it.

They have little issue getting their hands on cigarettes and/or liquor, after all. I would suspect that the same 18+ crowd that enables their bad habits will be more than happy to help them with this, as well.

Dr. Goldshnoz:You just watch, this is going to cause crime, destroy the innocence of our children, bring the wraith of god upon us, destroy american society, and cause the further advance the women's war on men.

You just watch.

I don't think so. According to Pat Robertson and the late (yay!) Jerry Falwell, homos are to blame for all those things. Homos and lezzies. Homos, lesbians, and pagans. Homos, lesbians, pagans, and...oh forget it. Let's just call it "everyone who doesn't watch Pat Robertson".